Change to popular vote for president?
- Thread starter drmatsci
- Start date
Why would we change something that's been working for over 200 years? Are Democrats afraid Obama isn't going to pull his numbers?
Pushrod
Patriot
itsbob
I bowl overhand
No. the idea of the electoral college is to prevent some viral vote for Paris Hilton happening, and her getting in the White House.
It's one of the Checks and Balances.. and ensures, like stated above, that California, and NY don't decide who the President is every 4 years.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Democracy...
...is when 6 wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner.
A representative republic with certain inalienable rights is 5 wolves and a sheep with a smoking gun voting on what's for dinner.
...is when 6 wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner.
A representative republic with certain inalienable rights is 5 wolves and a sheep with a smoking gun voting on what's for dinner.
itsbob
I bowl overhand
Well they are the party of "Every Vote Counts"
except when its beneficial for them not to be counted
yeah, now that Hillary's conceded NObama wants the FL and Michigan votes and Delegates to count.
Friggin morons.
Don't forget to check your tire pressure, your nation's survival may depend on it!!
drmatsci
New Member
Interesting - its republicans that usually detest democrats for standing up for minority rule, or for pushing the minority issues to the majority. But if your argument against popular vote is that parts of the country with small population wouldn't 'count' than you are saying a popular vote would be a majority system.
Besides, I don't buy that argument. Popular vote is total vote. The person who voted in the middle of the country has just as much power as the person in a city. Yes, there are more people in cities, but that doesn't make each vote count less. Why shouldn't each vote count the same? Right now, a republican vote in CA doesn't count for anything. I would rather be in CA as a republican using the popular vote system - because right now it goes ALL to blue.
Toxick
Splat
Although some folks slobber all over themselves yelling about "democracy this, and democracy that", the fact is, we do not - and never have - had a democracy in this country. It was set up as a Representative Republic by the Founding Fathers who specifically avoided Democracy.
And I think it's done pretty good so far.
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
-- Thomas Jefferson
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.
--James Madison
And I think it's done pretty good so far.
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
-- Thomas Jefferson
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.
--James Madison
Toxick
Splat
I don't think Republicans want "Minority Rule" either.
I think the point to take from that is: Mob rules, whether majority mob or minority mob, is Bad Juju.
theArtistFormerlyKnownAs
Well-Known Member
Define "has been working"
We get a President every four years, don't we?
Mission accomplished.
Pete
Repete
I vote no for the simple fact the electoral college saved us from 4 years of that loonbag Al Gore. That to me means it worked.
Last edited:
drmatsci
New Member
I could probably go for that system. My problem is that the 'republic' is suppose to represent you, and in most cases, it won't happen. Most of you Mccain lovers down here won't get to be represented - same in CA. And in other states, its the other way around. Districts would be better represention, I agree.
thurley42
HY;FR
Define "has been working"
The fact you are here...not speaking Japaneese, Russian, or German.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
theArtistFormerlyKnownAs
Well-Known Member
Just a little point I wanted to make...
Everyone who is for the electoral vote remaining the decisive vote and basing their reasoning on that if the popular vote decided the president, the coasts would basically decide the election...you do realize that is GENERALLY the case now..right? The amount of electoral votes a state holds is based on population...
I believe changing to a popular vote being the decicive one would lead to a better representation of the people's elected official, and it would allow states like MD to split the vote a little better instead of the large city choosing where the electoral votes for the state go 
Everyone who is for the electoral vote remaining the decisive vote and basing their reasoning on that if the popular vote decided the president, the coasts would basically decide the election...you do realize that is GENERALLY the case now..right? The amount of electoral votes a state holds is based on population...
I believe changing to a popular vote being the decicive one would lead to a better representation of the people's elected official, and it would allow states like MD to split the vote a little better instead of the large city choosing where the electoral votes for the state go 
MMDad
Lem Putt
That would be great - if it were true. 2000: U.S. News Online: Election 2000: Electoral map
2004:
CNN.com Election 2004 - U.S. President
If you look at '92 and '96, Slick Willie won by winning the middle of the country.
United States presidential election, 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States presidential election, 1992 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
awpitt
Main Streeter
...yes but with flaws. You've mentioned that your vote doesn't count in MD because of the winner take all nature of the current system. If we changed to popualr vote, everyone's vote would count. It wouldn't matter if a candidate "carried" a particular state because all of the votes would be totaled up nationally. The candidates would have to compete for all the votes instead of just the votes in a few key states.
While a voted to change to a popular vote system, my actual preference would be for states to to change the way Electorial vote are allocated. This option wasn't included in the poll. The votes should be awarded by congressional district and the two votes representing the two senators should go to the candidate who won statewide. I think Nebraska and Maine already do this.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
But...
...every vote DOES count. It just so happens that GOP voters get beat pretty bad in Maryland. So, the GOP has plenty of work to do WITHING Maryland to change that. If we went to some other system, the GOP, or whatever party is in the minority, has no interest to work within their state to change the balance of power. Now, ones local district becomes more important and to hell with the rest of the state; viola, we become even more insular, even more separated from one another. Congressional districts become their own defacto governments for purposes of voting.
This needs some thought in my view as to if there really is all that much wrong with what we have now.
...every vote DOES count. It just so happens that GOP voters get beat pretty bad in Maryland. So, the GOP has plenty of work to do WITHING Maryland to change that. If we went to some other system, the GOP, or whatever party is in the minority, has no interest to work within their state to change the balance of power. Now, ones local district becomes more important and to hell with the rest of the state; viola, we become even more insular, even more separated from one another. Congressional districts become their own defacto governments for purposes of voting.
This needs some thought in my view as to if there really is all that much wrong with what we have now.